05-14-12-R Draft Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 14, 20 12 11 separate piece of furniture would be supplied within the units for closets and all units were in compliance with the State Building Code. Mr. Davidson stated he has been responsive to the City's comments to date. The traffic concerns for the site were being considered and Ramsey County has approved a right-in, right-out access point for Lot 2. His best estimate for the proposed uses were a bank and commercial site for Lot 2 with specialty retail in the McGuire's space. Mr. Davidson indicated he has attempted to answer every question from Staff in a timely manner. He noted an internal traffic pattern for the site was not requested from Staff and was therefore not submitted. He stated his traffic engineer could provide further comments to the Council. Mayor Grant clarified that an internal traffic plan was not requested from Staff. He asked if Section 8 vouchers had been discussed with Staff. Mr. Davidson indicated this was the case and noted that Section 8 vouchers were discussed in a meeting once with Staff. Vernon Swing, RLK, Inc., stated he has been reviewing the Holiday Inn site and has been considering potential uses for Lots 1 and 2. The traffic generation potential associated with the redevelopment of the hotel has been evaluated. Trip statistics were estimated for the potential development with specialty retail in the restaurant space with general office on Lot 2. The development was not seeking approval on those items this evening. Staff has focused much of the review on the development of Lot 2 and potential needs for the restaurant site. Mr. Swing indicated the future uses for these sites were undetermined and adjustments may be needed. He commented the proposed uses would have less traffic generated than a restaurant use. He noted the Staff Report calls for a traffic light in order to complete the redevelopment. Mr. Swing did not agree that a signal was necessary at this time as volume levels were not being met and access was not being compromised along County Road E. If and when the development hits the required thresholds, then a light would be required. Mr. Swing explained that conversations have been held with the County and the trip generations anticipated for Lot 2 required a right-in, right-out and not a signalized intersection. Until approval for the subdivision of Lot 2 was granted,the County would not move forward. Councilmember Holden asked if the traffic study was completed based on future of the B-2 zoning district. Mr. Swing indicated the traffic study was compared to the traffic generation on site based on 2012 conditions. The guidance plan looked at 95 apartment units and 120,000 square feet of office space. The stop light was not investigated as the initial conclusion determined traffic volumes did not warrant a signal. Councilmember Tamble questioned the limitations of Lot 2 that may hinder future development.